Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J
Legal heirs of R.Udaya Sankar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) 33284/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not mentioned
For the Respondents: Not mentioned
Compensation under public law requires evidence of negligence, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for compensation for death of a pilgrim due to cardiac arrest - Petitioners sought Rs.2 Lakhs as per government suggestion and Rs.25 Lakhs as compensation - Court noted lack of evidence on negligence of authorities in providing medical facilities - Compensation of Rs.1 Lakh already paid to petitioners was deemed sufficient - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 16, 17)
(B) Compensation - Public law remedy - The court emphasized that compensation can be granted under public law for infringement of fundamental rights, but must be substantiated by evidence of negligence. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are the legal heirs of R.Udaya Sankar, who died on 16.07.2011 during the pilgrimage to Sabarimala, allegedly due to inadequate medical facilities as directed by the court. The State contended that his death was natural and not due to negligence.
Findings of Court:
The court found no sufficient grounds to establish negligence by the respondents leading to the death of R.Udaya Sankar. The compensation previously awarded was considered adequate.
Issues: Whether the death of R.Udaya Sankar was due to negligence of the respondents and if the petitioners are entitled to higher compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners failed to prove negligence on the part of the respondents, and thus, the claim for additional compensation was not justified.
Result: Writ petition stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. responses from respondents regarding compensation and medical facilities. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding negligence and compensation claims. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court observations on public law compensation principles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's decision on lack of evidence for negligence and dismissal of petition. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the legal heirs of a deceased Sabarimala pilgrim by name R.Udaya Sankar of Tamil Nadu State, who succumbed to death on 16.07.2011 due to cardiac arrest while he was proceeding to Sabarimala Sannidhanam from Pampa through the trekking path, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to pay them an amount of Rs.2/- Lakhs as suggested in Ext.P1 letter dated 29.11.2013 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Kerala to the Commissioner of Travancore Devaswom Board; to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to award more than Rs.2/- Lakhs suggested in Ext.P1; issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to award an amount of Rs.25/- Lakhs as compensation to the petitioners and also issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to award a higher solatium to the petitioners under the doctrine of ‘parens patriae’.
2. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, R.Udaya Sankar, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4, died due to cardiac arrest on 16.07.2011 while he was advancing to the sanctum sanctorium of Sabarimala Sannidhanam. As per the order dated 06.07.2011 in SSCR No.2 of 2011 noting the death of pilgrims in Sabarimala due to cardiac problems, this Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board and Government of Kerala to make arrangements for medical facility and posting of doctors to attend such pilgrims suffering from cardiac problems while trekking to Sabarimala. But, no such medical facilities were made by the responsible authorities as directed by this Court. The death of R.Udaya Sankar happened 10 days after the order of this Court and it was reported by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala in his report dated 27.07.2011 in SSCR No.2 of 2011 and in O.P. No.15667 of 1992 and in Ext.P4 order dated 27.07.2011 in that SSCR this Court observed that “under the circumstances, we leave open the question as to any compensation for kith and kin of Udaya Sankar.” Thereafter, the 1st petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.31386 of 2011 before this Court seeking compensation from the respondents. As per Ext.P5 judgment dated 29.02.2012 this Court directed the 1st respondent State of Kerala to consider the representation submitted by the 1st petitioner seeking compensation with due notice to the 3rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. It is due to the inadequate medical facilities arranged by the respondents, the death of R.Udaya Sankar occurred. The petitioners seek public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court to redress their grievances.
3. The 1st respondent State of Kerala through the Special Secretary, Revenue (Devaswom) Department filed counter affidavit producing therewith Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) proceedings by which Doctors are posted in dispensaries in and around Sabarimala as per the direction of this Court in SSCR No.2 of 2011. The 1st respondent contended that the death of R.Udaya Sankar was a natural death and there is no provision to disburse any amount as compensation from the Government exchequer to the petitioners. It is further contended by the 1st respondent that normally every devotee visiting Sabarimala will be aware of the inhospitable terrain and typical features of a forest which are very hostile to human beings.
4. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit producing therewith the documents pertaining to the payment of compensation of Rs.1/- Lakh to the 1st petitioner on humanitarian grounds. It is contended by the 3rd respondent that the pleadings
